Performance Authenticity in the 2016 Liturgies at the Notre Dame Cathedral of Paris
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript presents a lot of potential for a very interesting and relevant topic. However, the way the topic is presented can at times appear to be lacking in clarity and a certain depth, not to mention the too many generalised assumptions underscoring a number of statements. Suffice it to highlight some examples:
"It marked a break with the past by abrogating Latin as the universal language of the liturgy, but it could not include the theological insights developed in later documents on the nature of the church, revelation, ecumenism, religious liberty, and the church in the modern world." (pg. 5)
"The authentic participation of the faithful is more their physical attendance. I now document authenticity at Notre Dame beginning with the entrance procession, followed by the other dimensions." (pg. 8)
"The Notre Dame choir is probably not better than similar ones, but it benefits from directors who spend a lifetime studying and teaching religious music," (pg. 9)
Such arguments definitely need to be substantiated by additional references. It is felt that the number of references definitely needs to be expanded upon. Citing from Wikipedia is hardly characteristic of an academic manuscript, so this must be absolutely avoided.
Certain terms such as "denominations" and "orthodoxy" (which are highlighted for easier referencing) are not precise. The term "denominations" can be appear quite offensive in contemporary ecumenical circles. I think that, rather than "orthodoxy", Eastern Orthodox traditions needs to be used. Precision is key in presenting such arguments.
The structure of the document needs to be revised, not only for grammatical mistakes but also in order to check the structural layout in presenting the thrust of the argument. While the division into the four dimensions of 1) prayerfulness, 2) choir singing, 3) participation, and 4) visualization proved helpful, yet it needs to be abetted by stronger argumentation and referencing, since it times the material verged on the descriptive.
In light of these suggestions, major revisions of the manuscript are needed in order to develop the potentiality of such an actual and relevant material which needs further unravelling and unwrapping.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
The English language definitely needs to be improved. A number of mistakes are highlighted.
Author Response
The reviewer offers several criticisms. I will consider three.
1) Extensive editing of English language is required.
When copying the reviewer’s comments, my Microsoft American Language editor underlined in red the reviewer’s British spelling, and underlined in blue, nine inappropriate uses of the English language. I content that this reviewer’s comments mainly reflect his/her own views about what is appropriate English.
Here is an example. “The term "denominations" can be appear quite offensive in contemporary ecumenical circles. I think that, rather than "orthodoxy", Eastern Orthodox traditions needs to be used.” First, I notice that my American English editor underlined in blue two inappropriate uses of English in this sentence. The term “denomination” is the normal and universal term in the U.S. for religious organizations that are seen as neither “churches” nor “sects.” British or European usage may be different. As to “orthodoxy,” granted that “Eastern Orthodox traditions” would be more accurate, but I use “orthodoxy” only once in passing in the whole paper. The reviewer seems to be nitpicking. Other such examples are the reviewer’s objection to the single-word titles, “Findings,” “Prayerfulness, and the two-word title “Papal masses.” The reviewer underlined each and every occurrence of Latin words that are not italicized, and a few obvious punctuation failures. The reviewer mentions the “the too many generalised assumptions.” Assumptions by definition are subjective and relative to one’s social milieux. To claim that there are “too many” such assumptions can be seen as a generalization.
There are a few cases of obvious misspelling, for which I am grateful, and I will correct them. But in no way is the reviewer’s call for an extensive editing of English language justified.
2) “The structure of the document needs to be revised,… since it times the material verged on the descriptive.” No. “It times” ? – It cannot verge on the descriptive, because it is essentially descriptive. It is a sociological paper that describes the unique 2016 performances at Notre Dame. The paper shows that they are unique in comparison the papal masses, and the major American network of Catholic TV.
“Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated? Must be improved.” I do not use a research design as usually understood. This paper is a description of the 2016 liturgical performances which involved no hypothesis. The method is explained in 85 lines of text. I distinguish between authentic performances (as indicated in the title) and another type called style. Throughout the paper it should be clear that the 2016 performances were authentic, not style performances.
3) “It is felt that the number of references definitely needs to be expanded upon. Citing from Wikipedia must be absolutely avoided.” In the introduction I mentioned majors works of theology and spirituality to point out that they are not relevant for my analysis of performance authenticity. Performance belongs to the field of performance studies in many universities, but theater and movie acting are foreign to liturgical performances. Closest to performance authenticity are the traditions of Shakespeare companies and La Comédie-Française about which Wikipedia is the best source of information (academic books on the subject would be an overkill).
In summary, this reviewer made it clear that a descriptive sociological paper may not fit many readers’ expectations about theories, hypotheses, and references. I have therefore added a summary of the argument where I explain the purpose and structure of this descriptive sociology paper. The contribution of this paper is the description of the unique liturgical performances of Notre Dame. This description in turn raises question for liturgists and theologians, but these are beyond the scope of this work.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author takes up a very interesting issue, which is the authenticity of the liturgy. Unfortunately, it is not clear what criteria he adopts for this authenticity. It is not known whether he examines the authenticity of the liturgy celebrated live or the broadcast liturgy. As I mentioned above, the author ignores the entire research tradition to date concerning the transmission of the Holy Mass. The theological background of the problem has not been clearly outlined, there is no reference to the basic documents of the Church regarding the liturgy and its transmission. The author's assessments are very discretionary. In the introductory part, the style of the article is more of an essay than a scientific article. Reflections on Hollywood or Comedie Francaise contribute nothing to the argument. In conclusion, the conclusions are based on unclear criteria, and the argument lacks reference to important literature.
Author Response
REPLY to Reviewer 2
“It is not clear what criteria he adopts for this authenticity.” I have a section on method that states, “My criterion of evaluation is authenticity in liturgical performances.” I concede that I should clarify this statement at the beginning.
“It is not known whether he examines the authenticity of the liturgy celebrated live or the broadcast liturgy.” Line 62 states: “This article is based on the six 2016 liturgies of June 12 and 26, July 3 and 17, August 15, and September 4.” It would be impossible to describe the live 2015 liturgies from memory.
“The author ignores the entire research tradition to date concerning the transmission of the Holy Mass.” This paper is on liturgical performances; it has nothing to do with the transmission of the Holy Mass.
“The theological background of the problem has not been clearly outlined, there is no reference to the basic documents of the Church regarding the liturgy and its transmission.” Church documents regarding the liturgy would be out of place in a paper on performances. I clearly stated at the beginning of the introduction (line 22+) “. The theology of the liturgy …(and) spirituality have little to say about the quality of liturgical performances.” In short, this paper should not be judged according to theological criteria.
In conclusion, I recognize that I did not mention clearly enough that this is a sociological and descriptive study; I wanted to avoid theological arguments. This reviewer indicated indirectly that this point needed to be made more clearly. I will therefore state at the beginning: this paper has nothing to do with the theology of the mass.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe improvements made are to be commended. In specifying certain comments, the aim is always to achieve precision when it comes to theological and ecumenical jargon.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNo commentds
